Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

GISDB

by io.gisdb
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

suggest_property_condition_defects

Read-onlyIdempotent

Suggest evidence checks from retained property observations. Missing hazard evidence stays unavailable. County weather events do not establish parcel damage; no defect, repair cost, deduction or filing readiness is inferred.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "address_or_pidn": "<address_or_pidn>"
    },
    "name": "suggest_property_condition_defects"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
county_keyNoOptional exact registered county adapter key, such as hamilton. Restricts lookup to that county and avoids unrelated county scans; conflicting explicit prefixes are rejected.
address_or_pidnYesProperty street address or parcel ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral constraints: missing hazard evidence remains unavailable, weather events do not establish parcel damage, and no defect, repair cost, deduction, or filing readiness is inferred. These are important limitations for an agent interpreting the tool's outputs, though the description does not explain what a suggested evidence check looks like or what the response format contains.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and front-loaded, with no filler: it first states the core action, then immediately qualifies evidence availability and explicitly rules out unsupported inferences. The sentence listing non-inferences is dense but purposeful, and the overall structure is efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description should clarify what the suggested evidence checks are or how results are presented; instead it focuses on limitations. It does establish important non-inferences and data availability constraints, but an agent still lacks a clear picture of the returned suggestions and how they relate to the property condition evidence catalog.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both address_or_pidn and county_key. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Suggest evidence checks from retained property observations.' It is clear that the tool is a read-only suggestion tool over retained property data, though 'evidence checks' is somewhat abstract and the description does not explicitly differentiate it from related sibling tools such as get_condition_evidence_catalog.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when the tool is useful by tying it to retained property observations and warning that missing hazard evidence stays unavailable. It also includes exclusions, such as county weather events not establishing parcel damage, but it does not name alternatives or give explicit when-to-use routing guidance against sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All GISDB toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources